MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062205667 · doi:10.1186/1471-2342-8-8

Application of reinforcement learning for segmentation of transrectal ultrasound images

2008· article· en· W2062205667 on OpenAlexaff
Farhang Sahba, Hamid R. Tizhoosh, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Imaging · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationReinforcement learningModality (human–computer interaction)Image segmentationComputer visionUltrasoundPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Among different medical image modalities, ultrasound imaging has a very widespread clinical use. But, due to some factors, such as poor image contrast, noise and missing or diffuse boundaries, the ultrasound images are inherently difficult to segment. An important application is estimation of the location and volume of the prostate in transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images. For this purpose, manual segmentation is a tedious and time consuming procedure. METHODS: We introduce a new method for the segmentation of the prostate in transrectal ultrasound images, using a reinforcement learning scheme. This algorithm is used to find the appropriate local values for sub-images and to extract the prostate. It contains an offline stage, where the reinforcement learning agent uses some images and manually segmented versions of these images to learn from. The reinforcement agent is provided with reward/punishment, determined objectively to explore/exploit the solution space. After this stage, the agent has acquired knowledge stored in the Q-matrix. The agent can then use this knowledge for new input images to extract a coarse version of the prostate. RESULTS: We have carried out experiments to segment TRUS images. The results demonstrate the potential of this approach in the field of medical image segmentation. CONCLUSION: By using the proposed method, we can find the appropriate local values and segment the prostate. This approach can be used for segmentation tasks containing one object of interest. To improve this prototype, more investigations are needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical ImagingSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207